Posts by Deborah
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Oh well. I suppose I'll stick my neck out on this one. I'll start with the easy thing. (Emphasis mine.)
also relevant to Deborah's latest post ... that I find usefully provocative
Thank you, Gio. That's quite a compliment, and I appreciate it.
Now the difficult bits...
With regard to who is and who isn't a feminist: If someone claims to be left-wing, but runs a business, pays her employees the minimum amount possible, regards taxation as theft, and thinks that all those immigrants should be sent home right now, then I think we would be justified in saying that she is mistaken, and wrong to claim to be left wing. She might regard herself as left-wing, perhaps because her family are life-long Labour voters, but all the evidence is to the contrary.
When it comes to feminism, and who is or who isn't a feminist, I'm prepared to say that feminists must be pro-choice. Not pro-abortion for themselves, necessarily, but pro-choice. They must recognise that other women are autonomous adults, fully capable of making decisions for themselves, and fully responsible for living with the consequences. In words that I've stolen from Stef, because I loves them: Feminism - free to fuck up. Your life, your decisions, your responsibility. Just because you are an autonomous adult.
I've got a long post about it over at my place, from sometime last year: Why feminists must be pro-choice.
That's why I don't think Sarah Palin is feminist. She's all too ready to tell other women how to live. In particular, she's happy to remove the ability to make moral choices from women, because she doesn't trust them to make those decisions the way she would like them to be made. Palin is a beneficiary of feminism, but I don't think that she herself is feminist.
Why yes, I am making a judgement there. Deal with it. I think the way I understand feminism leaves masses of room for all types of feminisms. But not for people who deny women's agency.
With regard to the "Bad Feminist" label: I don't care for it, and I try hard to avoid it, for myself, and with respect to other people. But I'm happy to describe particular actions or events or ideas or wev as not feminist. Who lives a life of perfect feminism, or progressivism, or leftism, or rightism, or wev-ism anyway? I'm no moral saint, and I don't suppose many people are, and if they are, I don't want to know them.
With regard to calling myself feminist, well, that's what I am. If I eschew the label, then I leave it to be defined by the people who claim it. If I want the label to mean something, then I feel that I need to stay within it, and work to make it as broad and inclusive as possible, without losing that core commitment to recognising women as autonomous adults.
And I keep on with the label, even though it's challenged, deeply, by people who argue that feminism is a movement of elite white women. (For an alternative view on why Sarah Palin really is a feminist, check out this post at Womanist Musings: Is Sarah Palin really a femnist?) I have no desire to deny the history of the term, nor to try to back away from my identity because it can be problematic.
For the record, I'm married, with children, I support my husband's career and only work part time myself, I wear make-up and high heels ('though not outrageous ones, because I'm just too old for my feet to manage anymore), I am, in fact, a Bad Feminist (TM) in many aspects of my life. But still a feminist. Because I think that women are adults. And I treat them as such.
Regarding SATC2 - haven't seen it, don't intend to, because I'm not interested in spending $40 on babysitting in order to see it.
Time to stop now... just bear in mind that I don't get up as early as you lot back in NZ. Also, I am busy tomorrow, so if you want to dissect this, I won't be here to join in the fun. Also, this is now longer than Emma's original post, which is RUDE (I'm sorry, Emma) so I wouldn't be at all upset if it gets the TL:DR treatment. Fair enough.
-
Funny how "feminisms" implies diversity and broad church, but "feminists" implies the Borg.
/stopsfeatherbrainmusingandgetsbacktofcknmarking
-
The Australian has come to the party too
All White on the night - Kiwis show Australia how it's done
JUST when you thought the World Cup couldn't get any more annoying, what about this? On day five of the tournament as things currently stand it's New Zealand 1 and Australia nil.
-
And tackling porn is going to be at least 500 posts for all of us
Just.Don't.Start.
Srsly.
-
Well... I hear an undertone of rape in "When Harry Banged Sally" (and that would offend against the consenting adults criterion), but not in "When Harry and Sally Shagged". So not quite exactly.
But exactly enough to take your point. There is an overtone of sniggering and moral prurience attached to the discussion of Shane Jones' extra expenditure which doesn't attach to flashing the crown card at bike shops and golf clubs. Yet the degree of moral culpability is the same.
-
I've got absolutely no problems with MPs staying in comfortable, even very comfortable hotels. I've got no problems with them having a quiet meal in their room. I've got no problems with them having a few drinks, getting their laundry done, making a phone call home.
(I'm a little appalled to have heard up-thread that officials from one ministry were staying in back-packers hostels. Maybe if it was something to do with a highly political matter that they were trying to organise, and staying at a fancy motel or hotel was going to be a very, very bad look, but the minister ought to be bloody grateful, and it ought not to happen otherwise.)
But buying porn, or even just any pay-per-view movies on the taxpayers' tab? That's personal, out of hours entertainment, and it gets paid for by the person using it, themselves, just they way they would pay if they went to a movie at the picture theatre, or took in an off-Broadway play, or went shopping in Harrods.
-
I do have issues with porn, but they are entirely tied up with the notion of consenting adults. Whatever any consenting adult and her or his partners and friends and chance acquaintances (who are also consenting adults) want to do in their bedrooms is entirely their affair, and none of mine. It's their private, personal business.
And that's exactly why it shouldn't be on the taxpayers' tab, even momentarily. It's private, personal business. What is so hard to understand about that?
It is exceedingly easy to get hotel staff to process two transactions instead of one. It is exceedingly easy to get a copy of the bill, highlight the personal items, and say to the clerk, "Put $x on this card, and the rest on this card." Far easier than trying to refund the amount to your employer.
These people have put themselves forward to run the country. They have claimed that we can trust them, that they know the right thing to do, that they have the capacity to make good judgements, that they will act with due consideration and care. But they have failed on a very, very simple test. They can't distinguish between what is private and personal, and what is public. It's a very clear demonstration that they are not suitable to be parliamentarians.
I wouldn't have worried so much if it had been just a one-off event w.r.t. Jones' after-hours entertainment. That would have been just a slip-up, the one, or maybe two, occasion(s) when the personal amounts didn't get split out of the bill, by mischance. But it wasn't a one-off event. It was repeated many times. That indicates on-going misjudgement, of the sort that suggests he ought not to be in parliament.
-
I like to be in the same category as the brainy Deborah. I always feel like the dumb one here but can't stop contributing!
Hmmm... I've got a fair degree of formal training in a particular area, but that's about it. I like hanging around with all the smart and insightful people here, and I don't get here nearly as often as I would like.
-
Just as a matter of interest, how would your academic career look if you'd been caught out dipping into the departmental petty cash...
I'd have been carpetted the first time, and fired the second time. As it turns out, I've never done such things, because just somehow, I seem to be able to distinguish my employer's money from mine.
Is it okay for the taxpayer to fund my Chevy Chase habit?
No. Renting a movie is personal. Buying a book or a magazine to read is personal. Going out to a movie theatre is personal.
Eating a meal is fine. Eating a meal at a good restaurant is fine. Having a glass or two or three of wine with it is fine. Staying in a comfortable hotel is fine. I see no reason to make our employees suffer because they are away from home. But whatever they do for after hours entertainment is entirely their own affair, and they should pay for it themselves. That's what the rest of us do.
Why yes. I am drawing a line. It looks fairly straightforward to me, and I suspect, to most employees.
What's with renting movies anyway, when there's plenty of free-to-air TV, and probably Sky TV in your hotel room too.
-
I believe these people had many other things on their mind as these transactions took place and unless proof can be found that deliberate stealing was involved , the hardcore liberal in me says let's get perspective.
It's very, very hard to stretch this sentiment far enough to cover porn. Surely no one would ever think that it's okay for the taxpayer to cover her or his porn habit. Even for a short time, until it's repaid. Or a bag of golf clubs.